Friday, April 6, 2012

His name was Theophrastus Philippus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim and his contemporaries called him Paracelsus, but history knows him by this title: the Father of Toxicology. Paracelsus was a 16th century Swiss physician who profoundly influenced our understanding of how chemicals affect the body. His dictum, "The dose makes the poison," helped explain that even toxic substances could be safe as long as the amount ingested remained below a certain threshold. It's still a major principle of modern toxicology, and it's why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency and other government safety offices fight with industry to find that safe level below which the toxins that are part of modern life can be tolerated.

But as science advances, we can detect smaller and smaller doses of chemicals in the human body — as small as one part per trillion, or about one-twentieth of a drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention biomonitoring survey found that Americans have traces of 212 environmental chemicals in their bodies — including so-called endocrine disrupters like bisphenol-A (BPA), which may have a major impact on human health even though the dose is barely perceptible. But our ability to detect chemicals outpaces our ability to understand exactly what exposure means for us — which puts regulatory agencies in a tight spot, especially when the chemicals in question are widely used in modern life and are hard to replace.

That's exactly where the FDA finds itself with BPA. The chemical has been used since the 1940s to harden polycarbonate plastics and to manufacture epoxy resin, employed in the lining of food and beverage containers, among countless other products. BPA is good at what it does — that's why some 6 billion lb. (2.7 billion kg) of the chemical are produced globally each year. But BPA is also a synthetic estrogen — meaning it can mimic or disrupt the effect of that hormone — and both animal and some human studies have associated BPA exposure with health and developmental problems, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, early puberty, even learning disabilities. That's despite the fact that human beings are exposed to such tiny amounts of BPA — perhaps 0.2 micrograms per kg of bodyweight per day for adults, well below the 24-year-old federal safety threshold of 50 micrograms per kg. If BPA is a threat to human health — and many scientists believe it is — the damage is being done in microscopic doses.

So when the evidence is scary but uncertain, what will the federal government do? When it comes to BPA, the answer is not much. On March 30, the FDA announced that it was rejecting a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to ban BPA from food packaging. The environmental group had filed the petition in 2008, asking the agency to ban BPA from food-contact uses — and when the agency failed to reply, NRDC filed a lawsuit last year that forced it to decide by the end of March. The FDA declined, arguing that the studies presented by the NRDC and its allies were too thin and too small to be conclusive, with too little research done on humans.

"While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans," the FDA wrote in a statement following its ruling. The agency put more emphasis on government-conducted studies that indicated BPA was metabolized and excreted from the body too quickly to do much damage.

Of course, there are reasons proper human studies of BPA can be hard to come by. The chemical is ubiquitous in the environment, which means it's nearly impossible to find human beings who haven't been exposed to it — by some counts over 90% of us have BPA in our bloodstreams. That makes it awfully hard to assemble a good control group of unexposed people to compare with the exposed majority. And without a control group, good science can't be conducted. Those studies that exist do tend to associate BPA with certain health problems, but that doesn't mean scientists can prove causation.

For most public-health advocates, chemicals like BPA should be guilty until proved innocent — and they feel there's more than enough data out there to cast doubt on BPA's innocence. That's led to frustration with the slow pace of the FDA, which only two years ago expressed "some concern" over the health risks posed by BPA. "It makes me uncomfortable to think that while the research and regulatory process drags on (for how many more years) consumers are continuing to be exposed," wrote NRDC senior scientist Gina Solomon after the FDA ruling. "Let's hope the FDA remembers their responsibility to public health and takes action soon."

Meanwhile industry groups like the American Chemistry Council — which takes the innocent-until-proved-guilty line on chemicals — cheered the FDA's nonaction. But while BPA has a reprieve for now, as we learn more and more about the effects of it and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals, I think we'll see regulation follow in the wake of science. Already consumers are avoiding BPA on their own, while companies like Campbell Soup and Heinz have been phasing out the chemical in advance of government action. Even as it declined to ban BPA, the FDA said it would keep researching the chemical. "I cannot stress enough that this is not a final safety decision on BPA," FDA spokesman Douglas Karas said after the ruling. Science moves slowly and regulation moves even slower, but sometimes neither will be stopped.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2110902,00.html#ixzz1rIxzFbId

Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont's Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.

The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.

Instead, they're calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.

What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont's "right to know" bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after a Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a "low appetite" for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to "go it alone" against Monsanto in court.

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation.

Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto's minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge's decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment "right" to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH - even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.

Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitols. The company's stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens' Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as "natural."

All of Monsanto's fear mongering and intimidation tactics were blatantly on display in the House Agriculture Committee hearings March 15-16.

During the hearings, the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill - more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000. The legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses such as Dr. Michael Hansen, an expert on genetic engineering from the Consumers Union, who shredded industry claims that GMOs are safe and that consumers don't need to know if their food is contaminated with them.

On the other side of the fence, Monsanto's lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece, Margaret Laggis employed inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims to make Monsanto's case. She warned during the hearings that if this law were passed, there would not be enough corn, canola, and soybean seed for Vermont farmers to plant.

Laggis lied when she said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had done exhaustive feeding tests on genetically modified foods. Hansen corrected her, testifying that all of the GMO feeding tests submitted to the FDA were conducted by Monsanto and other GMO corporations and that the FDA had not done any GMO testing of its own.

Laggis lied again when she claimed that a recent Canadian study showing that more than 90% pregnant women had high levels of a genetically modified bacterial pesticide in their blood resulted from them "eating too much organic food" during pregnancy. Again, Hansen refuted this nonsense by pointing out that the Bacillus thuingensis (Bt) bacterium spray used by organic growers is chemically and materially different from the GMO Bt bacterium which showed up in the pregnant women's blood and the umbilical cords of their fetuses. Hanson pointed that the high levels of Monsanto's mutant Bt in the women's blood was due to the widespread cultivation of GMO corn, cotton, soy, and canola.

The committee heard testimony that European Union studies have been conducted which showed that even short-term feeding studies of GMO crops caused 43.5% of male test animals to suffer kidney abnormalities, and 30.8% of female test animals to suffer liver abnormalities. Studies also have shown that the intestinal lining of animals fed GMO food was thickened compared to the control animals. All of these short-term results could become chronic, and thus precursors to cancer.

Studies like these have prompted 50 nations around the world to pass laws requiring mandatory labels on GMO right foods.

In the end, none of the scientific testimony mattered. Monsanto operatives simply reverted to their usual tactics: They openly threatened to sue the state.

Unfortunately, in the US, industry and the government continue to side with Monsanto rather than the 90% of consumers who support labeling. Monsanto's biotech bullying is a classic example of how the 1% control the rest of us, even in Vermont, generally acknowledged as the most progressive state in the nation.

Vermont activists are organizing a protest at the state capital on April 12 to coincide with the next round of hearings on H-722, and are asking residents to write letters, make calls, and e-mail their legislators and the Governor. For more information, please go to the website http://www.vtrighttoknow.org or the Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/vtrighttoknow of the Vermont Right to Know Campaign.

* * *

Will Allen is the co-manager of Cedar Circle Farm in East Thetford, Vermont. He is also the Author of The War on Bugs , a history of farm pesticides and fertilizers since 1810. He is on the policy advisory boards of The Organic Consumers Association and Willing Hands. He has attended all of the agriculture committee hearings on H-722, where the testimony referred to above was delivered.

Ronnie Cummins is the National Director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Millions Against Monsanto campaign. He also is a member of the Steering Committee of the California Ballot Initiative to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and co-author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

FDA to GMO labeling campaign: What million signatures?

It hasn’t been a good week for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — if you care about public health. If, however, you think corporate interests and politics should trump science, well, then it’s been one red-letter day after another.

First, the FDA announced its refusal to ban the common endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA). Then, on an unrelated note, The New York Timespublished a lengthy analysis of the repeated interference by the Obama White House in the FDA’s decision-making process. (The White House meddled in calorie-labeling on movie popcorn, warning labels on low-SPF sunscreen, and an ozone-deplete chemical in certain asthma inhalers.) It’s a distressing pattern of political involvement in science that Obama inherited from the Bush administration.

But it gets worse. Or better if you’re Monsanto. The deadline for the FDA to respond to the Just Label It petition for genetically modified food labeling arrived last week. And, as required by law, the agency responded. Sort of. It supplied a letter to the group behind the petition that said, essentially, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety — one of the groups involved with the Just Label It campaign — told the Chicago Tribune the letter stated that the agency had “not made a decision yet and when they did they would let us know.” The FDA also suggested the group keep an eye out for the first signs of frost in hell. (Okay, I made that last part up.)

The Just Label It campaign had reason to be a bit optimistic. Past surveys have indicated around 90 percent of Americans want GMO labels on food, and Just Label It’s own survey found similar results. The group also collected signatures from 1 million Americans — an undeniable sign that the public broadly supports, even demands, labels.

But it looks like the FDA is refusing to see it that way. In a footnote to its mild response, the FDA observed that a mere 394 comments were submitted by Just Label It, rather than the million the organization claimed. That’s no small disagreement. The difference boils down to way the FDA handles submissions. The main Just Label It petition was submitted as a single document, or docket, and the FDA is choosing to count it as one comment (the other 393 comments come from individuals who contacted the agency separately, i.e. not through the Just Label It site).

As explained by the Chicago Tribune, the FDA doesn’t care “if 35,000 people … sign their name to the same form letter” or 1 million people do. Either way, it counts as a single comment in its system. Personally, I don’t recall the FDA (or any other agency for that matter) understating the number of comments or respondents on a submitted petition like this before. Needless to say, the Just Label It (JLI) folks are not pleased. The Tribune article reads:

“This is the problem with the very un-friendly regulations.gov site,” said Sue McGovern, spokesperson for the Just Label It campaign, in a statement. “It will not allow groups like Just Label It to direct individual comments from our site into theirs.
“It would be great if FDA would update their system to allow for more transparency by making a way for us to send in individual comments from our site so they would be visible to all without a [Freedom of Information Act request],” she said.
FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey said the rules are the same for all citizens petitions to the FDA, also called dockets.
“Because that’s the case for all dockets,” she said, “it’s impossible for me to compare the claim of 1 million comments to other dockets — especially without knowing how JLI is defining a ‘comment.’”

Really, FDA? What’s to compare? One million people told you in no uncertain terms that they want GMO labels and your response is, “Not by our count.”

To add to the confusion, and perhaps raise one’s eyebrows a bit further, Just Label It’s spokespeople have contended on the campaign’s blog that its own million response should count, even by the FDA’s standard process:

[T]he Just Label It Coalition submitted a record-breaking 1,149,967 comments to the FDA’s regulations.gov site by midnight on March 27th, the final date comments were accepted. It took only 180 days for this record-breaking amount of comments to be generated on the GMO labeling petition, (Docket # FDA 2011-P-0723-001/CP), which had been filed in October 2011 …
Another Center for Food Safety spokesperson involved in the process said, “Submitting gathered signatures and uploading them to regulations.gov together has been common practice as long as the public has been able to submit electronic comments.” It sure looks like the FDA is trying to weasel out of admitting the GM labeling effort was the largest such campaign ever.

I asked NYU nutrition professor and author Marion Nestle if she could shed any light on the situation, and here’s what she had to say: “I’m pretty sure I’ve read FDA Federal Register notices in response to comments in which they note that one petition was filed from x organization with x number of signatures. If they want to label [GMOs], they will use it as evidence. If not, they won’t.”

At the moment, there’s no evidence that the White House was involved in fudging the numbers on the Just Label It petition. But last year they did force the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency charged with regulating the genetically modified foods themselves, to approve unrestricted planting of genetically modified alfalfa against the wishes of USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. And that kind of interference sends a clear message — so FDA officials don’t need a phone call from the White House to tell them which way the wind blows on GMO foods.

This is just one more example of FDA foot-dragging on public health issues related to the food system. It pairs nicely with the agency’s recent [in]action on antibiotics in livestock. That’s not to say the FDA never acts decisively. Small family farms selling raw milk and making raw cheese? The FDA is all over that! They will crush those raw milk freaks like bugs to protect the dozens of people who might get sick.

But the hundreds of millions of Americans whose health is threatened by the rise of resistant bacteria in industrial meat? Or the million who would at least like to know when there are genetically modified ingredients in their food? Go file a new docket and they’ll get back to you!

I would suggest people look to their elected representative for help, but our leaders seem far more committed to standing up for oppressed corporations. Or perhaps to the courts, but our judges seem happier parroting Tea Party talking points. Sigh. It’s getting all but impossible to find government officials who seem even remotely interested in serving the people. Where do I submit a docket for that?

A 17-year veteran of both traditional and online media, Tom is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. Tom’s long and winding road to food politics writing passed through New York, Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, Florence, Italy, and Philadelphia (which has a vibrant progressive food politics and sustainable agriculture scene, thank you very much). In addition to Grist, his writing has appeared online in the American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times and The New Republic. He is on record as believing that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. Follow him on Twitter.

Exporting Obesity

Public health experts no longer accept that the obesity epidemic can be explained solely as the outcome of poor individual choices. They understand, rather, that the food environments or food “defaults” surrounding people constrain the actual choices people are likely to make, i.e., the number of fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer little (if any) fresh food, the variety of highly processed food products, and the pervasiveness of food marketing—especially with respect to children. Food environments are created beyond the point of sale. They start much further upstream, on the land. Here, two other major drivers of the food environment come into the picture: the industrialization of agriculture, and trade and investment rules that extend it to developing countries.

Industrialization, and globalization, of agriculture

There’s little doubt that the industrialization of agriculture in the U.S. has increased calorie output tremendously. One key component was federal investment in, and policies prioritizing certain agricultural research and development—in particular, focused on how to increase production, typically for corn, wheat and livestock commodities.

A second key component has been policies that set out, initially, to protect farm income and, subsequently, policies that promoted commodity production, even when production levels appear to have undercut farm income. In the mid-20th century, for example, U.S. agricultural policy included various mechanisms to manage the farm supply of commodities, in part through limits on production and through price floors. These policies dampened volatility in both commodity supplies and prices. In the last quarter of the 20th century, public policy moved away from supply management. Commodity firms and food processors pushed for these changes, precisely because greater production would mean lower prices for these commodities. Low prices, especially for corn and soybeans, in turn attracted livestock and dairy producers to begin using these commodities as feed. Today, meat and dairy producers are the largest end-users of corn and soybeans.

Decreasing commodity prices also led to the proliferation of novel products derived from them, such as high fructose syrup from corn, and hydrogenated vegetable oil from soybeans. These in turn served as inexpensive ingredients in a plethora of processed foods, usually relatively dense in calories but low in nutritive value.

Commodity overproduction and depressed prices for commodities in the U.S. led the government to seek new export markets for U.S. grains (and, more recently, U.S. meat). However, the sale overseas of U.S. commodities at prices less than the cost of domestic production—i.e., “dumping”—has been tied to the loss of economic value from agriculture in developing countries, resulting in hunger and depressed production in rural communities abroad.

Another aspect of globalization of agriculture has been the increased movement of food-related capital, technology, goods and services throughout the globe. This in turn has had a profound effect on the diet and nutrition of individuals. The so-called “nutrition transition” in developing countries is characterized by a shift toward an increased prevalence of excess caloric intake and its associated non-communicable chronic diseases in countries where, until very recently, chronic hunger and malnutrition were the dominant food-related concerns.

NAFTA and Mexico’s obesity problem

Mexico faces a significant rise in overweight and obesity over the last quarter century, mirroring the increase in the United States. In 1991, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, marked a turning point in multilateral trade agreements in several respects involving food and agriculture. In contrast to previous negotiations, for example, which included concessions for the poorer partner—known as special and differential treatment—NAFTA presumed relative equality between the three countries. Where higher level protection for certain food products remained between Canada and the U.S. (sugar, dairy and poultry), the U.S.-Mexico agreement phased out barriers to imports of corn and beans—key products in the Mexican diet and rural economy.

The agreement also broke new ground in terms of the breadth of issues it addressed: investment, intellectual property rights and government procurement—all opening the door for increased foreign investment including in the food and agriculture sector, while prohibiting certain performance standards, like demanding a minimum amount of domestic content in production by foreign firms. Before the conclusion of the NAFTA negotiations, the Mexican government had also made many unilateral changes to its domestic laws affecting agriculture, including, for example, abolishing laws requiring cattle to be fed grass rather than corn.

As the nature of Mexican agriculture changed dramatically, so did consumption patterns. Mexican diets shifted from traditional food staples toward energy-dense, processed foods and animal-source foods—which tend to be higher in fats and added sweeteners. In fact, from 1988 to 1999—the period in which NAFTA was negotiated, signed and put into effect—the average daily energy obtained from fat in Mexico increased from 23.5 percent to 30.3 percent (a 28.9 percent increase). In the same period, per capita consumption of total carbohydrates declined (from 59.7 to 57.5 percent) but consumption of refined carbohydrates increased, rising by 6.3 percent between 1984 and 1998 (soda consumption also increased 37.2 percent).

These trends acquire added significance in light of the observation that the timeline of NAFTA implementation, and the more general background of increased deregulation and trade flows with Mexico, has coincided with a significant rise in the incidence of overweight and obesity in Mexico.

Implementation of NAFTA: Effects on the flow of food and commodities

Generally speaking, trade flows between the U.S. and Mexico since the passage of NAFTA have trended toward increases in the amount of seasonal fruits and vegetables flowing north and an increase in the southward flow of commodity crops and livestock products.

Corn

Corn exports nearly quadrupled since the passage of NAFTA compared to the average annual level of corn exports from the U.S. to Mexico during the decade before NAFTA was signed (1984–93). At its highest point in 2008, the U.S. export of corn to Mexico totaled 9.3 million metric tons, equivalent to about 40 percent of Mexican production (compared to 15 percent during 1984–93).

Soybeans

Mexico already imported a large share of its soybeans from the U.S. before the implementation of NAFTA. This tendency was intensified by the removal of Mexican tariffs on soybeans and related products in 2003 as part of NAFTA, along with domestic reforms of crop support programs. Subsequently, imports of U.S. soybeans largely displaced domestic soybean production. It is likely that this has contributed to a more than tripling of U.S. soybean exports to Mexico since 1993.

Sugar and sweeteners

In July 2006, the U.S. and Mexico announced they had resolved the latest in a series of disputes regarding the interpretation of NAFTA’s sugar and sweetener provisions. The dispute concerned Mexico imposing a sales tax on soft drinks and other beverages that contained any sweetener other than cane sugar. The tax virtually stopped all U.S. exports of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to Mexico between 2002 and 2004. Since the resolution of this dispute, the quantity of HFCS exported to Mexico has increased rapidly. Since January 2008, there have been no duties or quantitative restrictions between the U.S. and Mexico on sugar and HFCS trade.

Ready-to-eat foods

NAFTA has also allowed for the increased flow of “consumer-oriented” (ready-to-eat) products from the U.S. to Mexico. Excluding meat products (discussed below) and fresh fruits and vegetables, the largest volume increases over the NAFTA period have been in dairy products and processed fruits and vegetables, followed by snack foods and other consumer-oriented products.

Growth in the Mexican import market for snack foods has also remained strong. The U.S. has more than a 98 percent share of the import market for snack foods in Mexico. Increases, such as in the average annual sales of 38 percent from 1999 to 2001, are illustrative of the rising domestic demand for snack foods in Mexico.

Livestock products

Since NAFTA came into effect, there have been huge increases in the amount of livestock products exported to Mexico from the United States. According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, the quantities of beef/veal, chickens and pork exported increased 234, 307 and 687 percent respectively from 1991–93 to 2007–09. There are also interesting patterns within the meat category, with poultry products used for the creation of processed meats and fast food (e.g., chicken leg quarters, turkey cuts, and other poultry products that have been mechanically deboned) rising markedly since NAFTA came into effect.

Foreign direct investment (FDI)

By liberalizing investment rules, NAFTA accelerated the trend of rising levels of foreign direct investment in Mexican agro-food industries that began in the 1980s. FDI from U.S. corporations has occurred all along the Mexican food supply chain, from production and processing to restaurants and retail.

U.S. direct investment in Mexico is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Mexican livestock production is highly integrated, due in large part to heavy investment of U.S. firms in industrial livestock operations, particularly in poultry and pork. For example, transnational firms control an estimated 35 percent of Mexico’s pork industry.

Mexico is the third largest recipient of U.S. FDI in processed food and beverage industries. A wide array of products—including snack foods and processed meats—are included, but investments in beverages (both soft drinks and malt beverages), oilseed processing, and highly processed foods are the largest. U.S. FDI in non-alcoholic beverage production alone (e.g., sodas) is at least $179 million annually.

U.S.-based fast food companies have also expanded into Mexico. McDonald’s opened their first restaurant in 1985, and today has more than 500 points of sale located in 57 cities in Mexico. Mexico is Yum! Brand Inc.’s (the owner of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Long John Silver’s) largest regional market.

Finally, liberalized FDI has also facilitated the entry of large food retailers into Mexico. One example comes from Wal-Mart: The number of Wal-Mart stores grew from 114 to 561 (265 of the stores contain supermarkets) between 1993 and 2001. In 2005, Wal-Mart controlled about 20 percent of the total Mexican food retail sector.

Changing food consumption in Mexico

Changes in patterns of food consumption and nutritional status in Mexico have no doubt been influenced by a wide range of factors, domestic and foreign. However, the analysis here suggests NAFTA has played a role in some dietary trends. Four are particularly notable:

Processed dairy products

Between 1989 and 2002, the quantity of dairy products consumed increased significantly in Mexico, and the proportion of households consuming ice cream and frozen desserts tripled. Within the dairy sector, exports of cheese and powdered milk are especially high, both of which are used as ingredients in processed foods.

Snack foods

Mexico’s consumption of snacks increased from $1.54 billion in 1999 to an estimated $1.750 billion in 2001. The U.S. is by far the largest exporter of snack foods to Mexico. There are many domestic snack manufacturers in Mexico and competition with U.S. exports has increased the aggressiveness of the sector.

Soft drinks

One of the major contributors to increased sugar intake in Mexico has been the consumption of soft drinks. U.S.-based soft drink companies, whose investments in Mexico rose significantly in the 1990s, dominate this sector. Between 1999 and 2006, the consumption of high-energy beverages more than doubled for adolescents and tripled for adult women. The net effect was to more than double the total energy consumed for adolescents and adult women.

Processed meat

When looked at in total, fresh meat consumption has increased relatively modestly in percentage terms (92.7 to 98.7 grams per household between 1989 and 2002, or 6.5 percent) with the increase coming mainly from lower socioeconomic groups. What this implies is that households that previously did not consume meat (low-income households) are now consuming meat. This is qualitatively different from middle- or high-income households consuming more meat. Yet there are three caveats to this finding. First, in percentage terms, intake of sausages and prepared meat increased much faster (from 15 to 25.4 grams from 1989 to 2002 or 69.3 percent) than intake of other kinds of meat. Second, meat for processing forms a significant proportion of meat imports into Mexico. Third, there are significant differences between bovine meat and poultry: it has been reported that between 1994 and 2003, chicken consumption increased by 50 percent, whereas beef and pork increased by just 14 percent. An increasing amount of chicken is used by the food service and fast food industries. Chicken is also used in prepared meals; the number of households consuming prepared meals almost doubled between 1989 and 2002.

Discussion

The U.S. has exported increasing amounts of corn, soybeans, sugar, snack foods and meat products to Mexico over the last two decades. These exports, facilitated by NAFTA, are one important way in which U.S. agriculture and trade policy is influencing the Mexican food system.

Coupled with rising imports, Mexico has received significant amounts of cross-border investment, also facilitated by NAFTA, from U.S. agribusinesses across the spectrum of Mexico’s food supply chain. As a result, the Mexican food system looks increasingly like the industrialized food system of the United States—characterized by the overabundance of obesogenic foods.

Mexico has experienced significant changes in food consumption patterns over the last two decades, followed by a rising obesity epidemic in both children and adults. Mexicans, both rich and poor, and from diverse geographic regions, are consuming more added fats and sugars from snack foods, sodas, and processed dairy and meat products. Their health is suffering in the process.

While public health researchers and policymakers are actively debating the relationship between the food system and the U.S. obesity epidemic, the impact of similar forces on the population of U.S. neighbors and trade partners has been less investigated.

Recommendations

Require Health Impact Assessments of proposed agricultural trade policies that include the active engagement of the public health communities.

Reconcile trade goals with programs that aim to strengthen global food security. The Mexican experience under NAFTA suggests that officials need to pay more attention to the nutritional outcomes of U.S. agricultural export expansion in developing countries.

Expand provisions in pending trade and investment agreements that allow stronger protections for public health, safety and the environment, essentially exempting them from standards in those agreements that would otherwise weaken such protections.

Conclusion

Officials now are paying more attention to the role the public health community can play in ensuring that trade agreements support healthy food systems and public health. This is an encouraging development. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) secretariats undertook a joint study, “to examine the linkages between trade and health policies, so as to enable both trade and health officials to better understand and monitor the effects of these linkages.” In 2006, member states at the WHO World Health Assembly adopted a Resolution on International Trade and Health to urge members “to address the potential challenges that trade and trade agreements may have for health.” Domestically, too, the health community has been engaged in trade-related issues concerning trade in health services, trade in harmful products, trade and social determinants of health, and food safety. The American Public Health Association, American Medical Association and American Dietetic Association have also published statements in support of healthy food systems and trade systems.

While recognition is growing in the U.S. that to address the root causes of obesity there will need to be significant reform of the dynamics or defaults of the food system, there has been insufficient attention to the impacts of exporting unhealthy food systems to developing countries. Policies that promote key foods and commodity products, as well as influence foreign investment trends, are based on the unexamined assumption that increasing volumes of low-price (and low-quality) food is good for producers and consumers—while failing to account for the very real costs to taxpayers and public health agencies in the U.S. and its trading partners.

Study Links NAFTA to Obesity Epidemic in Mexico

As Mexico's food system becomes more Americanized, Mexico’s struggle with obesity and its related health problems become Americanized as well

- Common Dreams staff Published on Thursday, April 5, 2012 by Common Dreams

A new study shows a link between the agribusiness-benefiting policies of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the obesity epidemic in Mexico.

The study, Exporting obesity: US farm and trade policy and the transformation of the Mexican consumer food environment, appears in the latest issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. (photo: Alejandro Sierra)

“We’ve known for years that NAFTA hurt small-scale farmers in Mexico and contributed to job losses on border. The realization that NAFTA’s rules on trade and investment may be partly responsible for creating an unhealthy ‘food environment’ in Mexico, mirroring that in the U.S., is new,” says Karen Hansen-Kuhn, a study co-author and program director with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

Dr. David Wallinga of IATP states, “As Mexico’s food environment has come to resemble that of the U.S., with more ubiquitous sodas, processed meats and other processed snacks high in added fats and sweeteners, it’s no wonder that Mexico’s struggle with obesity and its related life-threatening problems—diabetes, stroke, heart disease—has become ‘Americanized’ as well.”

The IATP notes that "before being ratified, bilateral or multilateral trade agreements typically have not been assessed for impacts on public health. This study suggests pre-ratification 'health impact assessments' would be smart public policy, as well as essential for appropriately engaging health communities in trade policy debates."

The U.S. has exported increasing amounts of corn, soybeans, sugar, snack foods and meat products to Mexico over the last two decades. These exports, facilitated by NAFTA, are one important way in which U.S. agriculture and trade policy is influencing the Mexican food system.
Coupled with rising imports, Mexico has received significant amounts of cross-border investment, also facilitated by NAFTA, from U.S. agribusinesses across the spectrum of Mexico’s food supply chain. As a result, the Mexican food system looks increasingly like the industrialized food system of the United States—characterized by the overabundance of obesogenic foods.
Mexico has experienced significant changes in food consumption patterns over the last two decades, followed by a rising obesity epidemic in both children and adults. Mexicans, both rich and poor, and from diverse geographic regions, are consuming more added fats and sugars from snack foods, sodas, and processed dairy and meat products. Their health is suffering in the process.
While public health researchers and policymakers are actively debating the relationship between the food system and the U.S. obesity epidemic, the impact of similar forces on the population of U.S. neighbors and trade partners has been less investigated.

NRDC Report Reveals 29 States Unprepared for Growing Water Threats to Economy, Health

WASHINGTON - April 5 - Only nine states have taken comprehensive steps to address their vulnerabilities to the water-related impacts of climate change, while 29 states are unprepared for growing water threats to their economies and public health, according to a first ever detailed state-by-state analysis of water readiness released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The report ranks all 50 states on their climate preparedness planning, and is accompanied by an interactive online map at www.nrdc.org/water/readiness showing the threats every state faces from climate change.
The new NRDC report, “Ready or Not: An Evaluation of State Climate and Water Preparedness Planning,” outlines four preparedness categories to differentiate between the nine best-prepared and most engaged states with comprehensive adaptation plans (including California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), from those states that are least prepared and lagging farthest behind (including Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, and Texas).
“Rising temperatures and more extreme weather events are impacting our families, our health and our pocketbooks. Water is a matter of survival. It powers our lives and industries, and it keeps our natural systems healthy,” said NRDC Water & Climate Program director Steve Fleischli. “This report is both a wake-up call and a roadmap for all communities to understand how vital it is to prepare for climate change so we can effectively safeguard our most valuable resources. Preparing for the impacts of a changing climate requires that states confront reality, and prioritize climate change adaptation to reduce local water risks and create healthier communities.”
NRDC’s report focuses on how state governments across the nation are planning and preparing for the water-related impacts of climate change. These impacts include more severe and frequent storms, intense rainfall, sea-level rise, warmer water temperatures, and drought events.
Key findings include:

Nearly nine out of 10 states are poised for more frequent and intense storm events and/or increased flooding.

While at least 36 states are facing possible water supply challenges, only six of those have comprehensive adaptation plans.

The majority of states – 29 or nearly 60 percent - have done either nothing at all or very little to prepare for water-related climate impacts. (See full list below.)

Six states – Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota – have done virtually nothing to address climate pollution or prepare for climate change in the face of growing water risks.

Water preparedness activities appear to have “slowed or stalled” in four of the nine best prepared states – Alaska, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Only 22 states have developed plans and formally adopted targets or goals to cut the pollution that causes climate change, which comes mainly from power plants and vehicles.

The 29 states that have done either nothing at all or very little to prepare for water-related climate impacts are broken into two groups: The least prepared or “Category 4” (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah); and the second least prepared or “Category 3” (Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming).
The full list of the nine most prepared states (“Category 1”) consists of: Alaska, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The climate crisis poses far-reaching implications for water supply, quality, accessibility, and use. More intense rainfall events increase flooding risks to property and health, and can cause devastating economic damages. They also overwhelm often-antiquated infrastructure, leading to increased discharges of untreated sewage in waterways and potentially contaminating drinking water supplies and closing beaches. Drought conditions and warmer temperatures threaten supply for municipalities, agriculture, and industries, and could increase water demand for irrigation, hydropower production and power plant cooling.
“A handful of state governments should be recognized as climate leaders for developing robust comprehensive adaptation plans while taking steps to cut global warming pollution,” said NRDC water policy analyst and report author Ben Chou. “On the flip side, there is tremendous potential for so many more states to follow suit. The first step is understanding how your state will be impacted by climate change. With an ever-growing body of research, new adaptation tools, and guidance resources, there’s no excuse not to tackle this challenge.”
There are proactive steps states can take to minimize the impact on communities increasingly vulnerable to climate-induced changes. NRDC encourages all states to undertake the following key actions:

Enact plans to cut emissions from power plants, vehicles and other major sources of heat-trapping pollution; coupled with increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Develop a comprehensive adaptation plan to address climate risks in all relevant sectors.

Prioritize and support implementation of the adaptation plan.

Measure progress regularly and update the adaptation plan as needed.

For more information about NRDC’s Ready or Not and to find out how your state ranks, go to http://www.nrdc.org/water/readiness. For state-by-state sound bites (SOTs) and b-roll videos, visit Ready or Not “Press Materials”.
NRDC’s blog series detailing select state findings:

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

What's the Difference Between Fox News and Oxford University Press?

by Frances Moore LappéPublished on Thursday, April 5, 2012 by Common Dreams

Eighteen months ago I read a book that changed my life. Yeah, yeah, I know... sounds corny. But it's not what you think. This book changed my life not because of what it said but because of what it didn't say.

On a nothing-special summer afternoon in 2010, I sat in the Cambridge Public Library preparing a speech on something I'd been studying for decades. I plugged "world hunger" into the library's computer. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know popped up.

Perfect, I thought. I knew I would have differences with the book because I'd just read a critique of the views of its author, Robert Paarlberg, by my daughter Anna Lappé on the Foreign Policywebsite. But I'm always eager to know how those with whom I disagree make their case. Noticing that Food Politics was published by Oxford University Press, I felt confident I could count on it being a credibly argued and sourced counterpoint.

So I began reading.

"I couldn't believe my eyes" doesn't do justice to the shock I experienced.

The book's subtitle suggests coverage of essential food issues and its back cover indicates Food Politics is not just another example of "conflicting claims and accusations from advocates," but rather "maps this contested terrain." Yet, I was finding only one piece of the "map" with key issues at the center of the global food debate omitted altogether. But what was jaw-dropping for me was that Food Politics lacked any citations for the book's many startling claims.

But how, I wondered, could a book on any serious topic be evaluated in the absence of citations?

I soon learned that Oxford University Press had published other books on vital public concerns, including nuclear power, with no citations. Hmm, I thought, even high school students are required to provide sources.

Then I got to the author's defense of Monsanto. He cites the "political stigma" that has been attached to GMOs, which "dried up investment" in GMOs in Europe, as a reason that the company now dominates the industry.

The claim seemed so wild that my suspicion was piqued. From there, a quick search on Monsanto's website showed that the author had been an advisor to the company's CEO. In the book's opening, moreover, Dr. Paarlberg thanks the Gates Foundation, among others, for supporting his independent work, without noting that the foundation is itself an investor in Monsanto.

My journalist son Anthony Lappé has always stressed to me the absolute rule of "full disclosure" of ties that could influence, or appear to influence, one's reporting. Surely, Oxford University Press grasps that such transparency is a foundation of democratic discourse; and how especially critical it is to uphold in a work on the life-and-death matter of hunger.

I had to act. After all, almost every speech I give ends with a call for greater boldness. I argue that humans are "good enough." It's our courage we need to stoke. So what could I do?

I began reaching out to scholars, and others whom I trust, to present a constructive challenge to Oxford University Press, asking it to hold the line on academic standards. Some weren't moved, saying, "Oh, Frankie, why don't you just publish a critical review yourself somewhere?" Or, "You'll never get anywhere going to the Press."

Their reactions spurred me on. My alarm was not about Dr. Paarlberg's views, for they can be addressed in fair debate. My distress was about the threat to democracy itself in Oxford University Press's choice to lower its standards.

OK, that might sound overblown. But not to me. Democracy depends on honest, fair, accurate debate. Without it, we can't possibly meet today's challenges. And if academic presses don't hold the line -- when fair discourse in the wider culture is in collapse -- who will?

In time, six distinguished, courageous scholars and leaders in the field of food, hunger and ecological farming, who share my alarm, joined me. First we sent our critique to the leader of Oxford University Press in New York City, Mr. Niko Pfund. We asked to meet to discuss straightforward remedies. At first, I truly believed top leadership at the Press would be distressed that this book had slipped through and would recommit to uphold basic standards.

Instead, after several weeks, we received a letter saying that Food Politics met its standards and no one would meet with us. (On the particular point of lack of disclosure, the Press told us that Dr. Paarlberg did not accept payment from Monsanto and therefore disclosing his advisory role was not required. However, we'd never said that he was paid by Monsanto. Our position is the widely accepted standard that any association, which could appear to influence a writer's coverage of his or her subject, must be disclosed.)

OK, we thought, what about the home base of Oxford University Press in Oxford, England? Surely, there, where two dozen faculty of the university, known as the Delegates, have final authority, we'll find leadership who shares our dismay. Calls and offers to travel to Oxford for discussions got nowhere. Finally, the office of Oxford University Vice Chancellor Andrew D. Hamilton, speaking for the Press, wrote to affirm the position of his New York office: The book met Oxford University Press standards; and no one would discuss the matter with us.

With those channels closed, we launched a petition campaign. And here's where we need your help!

On April 25th, I'll arrive on the steps of Oxford University Press in Oxford, England. And we would love to have your signature on the petition I'll deliver. The petition asks for just three basic standards to be upheld by Oxford University Press: citations for evidence-based claims, full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (whether financial or other associations), and accurate promotion of publications.

Is not each of these three -- transparency about sources, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and accurate promotion -- precisely the type of standard that distinguishes an academic press from, say, a Fox News?

(I read this book over a year ago,and was horrified by its wealth of misinformation,
distortions and non-existent citations of countless un-cited, unsubstantiated statements...not to mention the author's links with the many organizations he